MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Ian hire a waitress who may want kids?

DavidLaGuardia

David_Cameron wrote: »

I don't employ anyone who smokes -- or is any other form of junkie for that matter. I don't ask them. There is an ashtray on my desk and a cigarette box and lighter. Partway through the interview I will offer them a cigarette. If they take it and smoke it, they don't get the job. Simple ! If their fingers are stained with nicotine, I don't even need to be that devious. Did you know that many more young women smoke than young men ? Did I reject her because of her child-bearing age and the wedding ring? NO, I rejected her because of the nicotine stains on her fingers !! I employ people with SHARP brains and NOT those with drug befuddled ones! It is MY COMPANY and MY MONEY and MY CHOICE --- and my employees AGREE WITH THAT POLICY !! Is that legal or not? I don't care !

David,
On observation is as work places are non smoking now by law you are aiding an offence by allowing the candidtate to smoke
I am also intrigued by your conclusions here. How is smoking necessarily a proof of inefficiency in the work place? Also, what about someone like myself who doesn't smoke during the day but might partake at night. Infact many people are suprised to learn I smoke as I generally keep odour free and have no niccotine stains to offend.
Yes it's a stupid habit, but a non smoker may have some other greater fault in their personal make up you choose not to consider.
I am interested to learn what reliable evidence you have of its impairment on work? Some people who smoke are lazy and useless as with people who don't, but I have also known incredible high acheivers who are also smokers.

fatman67

This is a difficult one - and one which has raised obvious arguments.

I think really it's about risk... If a small, already struggling, company needs to minimise the chances of going under then I think it's only right for both current employees and employer to make difficult choices.

I know of someone who's wife struggled to get a new job. Their address was at an RAF base and local employees knew this. She ended up getting a job when a major company moved in and the people doing the interviews came from head office. Was this 'discrimination' or 'risk'. Employ a forces wife and she'll move away when her husband gets posted? Or maybe she just wasn't the best candidate for the jobs.

I notice how nobody has mentioned the 'discrimination' we all face from insurance companies. I get charged a higher premium because of my employment (which doesn't involve driving any more than anyone else). Obviously I'm more likely to have an accident (?) and should pay more - despite having 18yrs ncd. - No, insurance companies look at historical data and charge accordingly. - Yes it does hack me off but I understand the reasoning.

So what's my point.... simple really. You can call it discrimination/reality/decisions based on risk - it's his company and he needs to decide what's best. I don't think he should be penalised for trying to protect his business and current employees. If his experience is that young newlyweds tend to need maternity leave more than others, why shouldn't he use this in his decision making process?

ipod_killed_the_musicshop

fatman67 wrote: »

This is a difficult one - and one which has raised obvious arguments.

I think really it's about risk... If a small, already struggling, company needs to minimise the chances of going under then I think it's only right for both current employees and employer to make difficult choices.

I know of someone who's wife struggled to get a new job. Their address was at an RAF base and local employees knew this. She ended up getting a job when a major company moved in and the people doing the interviews came from head office. Was this 'discrimination' or 'risk'. Employ a forces wife and she'll move away when her husband gets posted? Or maybe she just wasn't the best candidate for the jobs.

I notice how nobody has mentioned the 'discrimination' we all face from insurance companies. I get charged a higher premium because of my employment (which doesn't involve driving any more than anyone else). Obviously I'm more likely to have an accident (?) and should pay more - despite having 18yrs ncd. - No, insurance companies look at historical data and charge accordingly. - Yes it does hack me off but I understand the reasoning.

So what's my point.... simple really. You can call it discrimination/reality/decisions based on risk - it's his company and he needs to decide what's best. I don't think he should be penalised for trying to protect his business and current employees. If his experience is that young newlyweds tend to need maternity leave more than others, why shouldn't he use this in his decision making process?

I can see your point if it's a small company. How do you feel if it's a large company?

fatman67

ipod_killed_the_musicshop wrote: »

I can see your point if it's a small company. How do you feel if it's a large company?

If think it probably does happen with big companies. (as does for car insurance) and I believe that to be wrong....However the scenario presented is this...

"Ian runs a small cafe, but business has been [hit?] badly by the recession, and he's fighting to survive."

....and for this case I believe he should try to protect his business and the jobs of all his current employees. If his business folds, everyone (including the new waitress) loses their jobs. This wouldn't benefit anyone.

ipod_killed_the_musicshop

fatman67 wrote: »

If think it probably does happen with big companies. (as does for car insurance) and I believe that to be wrong....However the scenario presented is this...

"Ian runs a small cafe, but business has been [hit?] badly by the recession, and he's fighting to survive."

....and for this case I believe he should try to protect his business and the jobs of all his current employees. If his business folds, everyone (including the new waitress) loses their jobs. This wouldn't benefit anyone.

Fair enough.